<Don't you guys think, for example, SprintPCS should market the CDMA "brand" (like Intel does with "Intel Inside"), to point out its quality of service? Right now, a consumer walking into a Sprint (or an AT&T) store would have no idea what technology he is buying (TMDA, CDMA). All he sees is the choice of service plans (dollars for minutes).>
The problem with that idea is that CDMA isn't a single thing. Some CDMA is useless and it depends on how well the handset maker and network operator build their gadgets. The brand will be more important. Just as one doesn't decide which car to buy simply on the basis of whether it's gasoline or diesel, one won't buy a phone based on the air interface.
Branding will be all important. "Qualcomm Inside" would make more sense than "CDMA Inside". Though I suppose that's a trademarked idea.
Whether it's CDMA or not would be in the literature, Web site or discussed with the salesperson. Many people won't care and will buy the shiniest phone or the cheapest or the most calls per dollar or the same as their friend or a voice controlled one with Web browsing and a big screen.
There are too many variables to emphasize something which doesn't necessarily translate to a benefit to the customer.
Anyway, soon, all phones will be CDMA, so why say, "Hey, this phone uses electrons and CDMA". The customer will say "So?" Sure, that's better than the old two cans and string, but nobody uses that anyway [or they ask for the string design if they want to].
That's my theory anyway.
Mqurice |
